The Polysemes of Nativeness:Two Fundamental Conceptions of Nativeness Unravelled and Compared

Written by Unibot.

“Any voice of dissent within their region is discredited by dismissing them as an agent of foreign powers. Furthermore, any who ask questions that make the ruling junta uncomfortable will find themselves with that same distinction. Similar to the Reichstag fire in Germany these actions are indicative of a group which is unable to justify its actions on their own merits and needs to resort to chicanery to avoid inflaming public opinion against them,” - Unistrut in “The Great Pacifican Lie”, The Politics of Invasion and Fear.

Introduction

As a defender, I know from experience there is a great intellectual urgency to be able to distinguish between natives and non-natives. Without this distinction being clear and resolute, the distribution of the Right of Self-Determination in any given founderless region becomes a very difficult and arduous process, since to assert a Right of Self-Determination assumes there is a community of peoples that ought to be able to govern autonomously over a region – if there is no way to distinguish these peoples from those who do not deserve to govern autonomously over said region then a Right of Self-Determination is ineffectual since no one claim is more valuable than any other claim over the region. When there is pure equality of legitimacy among property claims, this identifies a founderless region as public property, which, for all intended purposes, would be decivilianized chaos between competing regimes for governance.

There are those that may find the “sink or swim”/ “might is right” model-world I have presented above to be desirable, but for many others, including myself, a set of rules that civilianizes regions and protects the right of those who genuinely reside in a region to govern said region autonomously appears necessary on the basis that it (a) is intuitively right, (b) is conducive to peace and regional development, (c) acknowledges that individuals do grow attachment to their ‘home-regions’ which ought –out of universally applicability– derive a moral law to respect each home-region as belonging to one another to the same extent that any reasonable person would wish their own home-region also be respected as belonging to themselves and their community. For these reasons and for the purposes of this essay, I will reject the notion that the Right to Self-Determination is nonexistent in NationStates.

But once one accepts that the Right to Self-Determination must be upheld in regions, we return to the problem of determining who is a native and who is a non-native. A great deal of time and effort in the Pre-Influence Era was spent by moderators in determining Nativeness since the penalties under the Griefing rules were severe enough to cast significant importance on ensuring natives were identified as natives and non-natives were identified as non-natives. Moderators such as Cogitation, as will be discussed later, crafted and upheld legal definitions of Nativeness but there also arose political and casual definitions of Nativeness as players tried to legally separate long-term residents who possessed a significant claim for participation in the political and cultural activities of the region from those residents who did not. Following the Pre-Influence Era, the definition of Nativeness has been left open-ended for players to propose, discuss and debate amongst themselves which is the intellectual backdrop and context of this very paper.

Further Background: Regionalism and Cosmopolitianism

Before I discuss how to define Nativeness further, I believe it is necessary to explain what I mean when I write “Regionalism” and “Cosmopolitianism”. These are two terms I have constructed to describe diametrically opposed political philosophies in NationStates which determine what a player’s ideal conception of a region is and how they view the relation between themselves to the region. Since Regionalism and Cosmopolitianism are at the core of one of this paper’s central arguments, it would be beneficial for all readers to have a good contextual understanding of these two terms.

During the summer of 2012, I was doing research specifically on the former New Pacific Order that had ruled over The Pacific, The Pixiedance Regime of The North Pacific and the Alliance Defense Network. It struck me while reading some of the older posts from the Pixiedance era how much of a clear witch-hunt was occurring in The North Pacific with the target of the social phenomenon being members of the Alliance Defense Network. Obviously this occurred all of the time with the Alliance Defense Network, but how much this pattern of the phenomenon in practice followed the same characteristics of a conventional witch-hunt was striking in the Pixiedance case: the immediate public distancing from the Alliance Defense Network by individuals, the finger-pointing to direct suspicion from themselves to other more likely “sinners”, the increased speed and inquisitional nature of the trial system and a general increase in the level of paranoia, delirium and deception among residents. Although, in the Pixiedance case, the witch-hunt did not form naturally per se, it was mostly a consequence of Ivan Moldavi's influence over The North Pacific, therefore it lacked credibility and civilian responses varied. Traditionally, in repressive states where “outsiders” are shunned and cast out, it becomes natural for residents to hide some personal beliefs to avoid suspicion and develop their regional image into a patriotic character one can play – although this rarely satisfies the lack of comfortableness one has in such a community.

Shortly after this moment of inspiration, I drew comparisons between this incident and the culture of institutionalized patriotism that I would argue existed in all Post-August-Revolution Pacific Regimes to some extent, present-day 10000 Islands and witch-hunts of a similar nature that I have seen occur in my time while serving in feeder communities which would cast out members of The United Defenders League from their regions during public crises. I also drew a comparison between these circumstances and the various justifications that citizens in The North Pacific had for requiring World Assembly status to vote in The North Pacific’s World Assembly Regional vote. Some proponents of the tougher regional law were suggesting these non-World Assembly citizens were simply not trustworthy and had not proven their commitment to the region to deserve the ability to vote in The North Pacific. Overall, these connections led me to identify Regionalism as a political trend in NationStates. Regionalism shall be defined as a set of political values that emphasizes the importance of a strong and concrete regional identity, in addition to promoting patriotism and demonstrations of loyalty to the region. If given the choice between having ten contributing regional members whose loyalties are spread out across NationStates and ten committed regional members who hardly contribute to the region, a Regionalist would likely favor the latter over the former – commitment always take precedence over contribution.

Naturally, I began to think of what the opposite of Regionalism would be? The answer was personal and self-reflective, I believe I had understood it for quite some time but until I pitted it against a clearly defined antonym I had not identified it as a distinct ideology. My understanding of myself until this moment was essentially limited to knowing that I felt a feeling of solitude; I had just recently been cast out of The South Pacific as a grassroots movement had been spearheaded against The United Defenders League and I expected to be cast out of The North Pacific as a similar movement formed. I identified with Knights Errant from medieval chivalric romance literature – following an intransient moral law higher than any regional law and travelling between so many regions to assist where I could, my entire conception of a home-region or homeland was convoluted and perverted. I had regions where I was a citizen; I did my best to contribute to them. But was I a citizen in the same way citizenship meant to other defenders? Many of these defenders were fortunate enough to be citizens in staunch defender regions where they could openly be “defender” and proud of it, I doubt I ever felt the same sense of association, comfort and loyalty that they could feel when I spent a lot of my time as a citizen, hiding or distorting my personal beliefs to gain political credibility in primarily neutral or centrist political environments. When I thought of what could possibly be the opposite of Regionalism, I knew immediately I was an example of it – it would define who I was and it would define itself not in the negative sense (lacking an identifiable home) that I had come to feel, but in a positive sense (what it as an ideology had to offer people that Regionalism could not).

Cosmopolitianism is the term I chose to use to identify the opposite of Regionalism. It bears similarities in practice with Individualism (whereas Regionalism bears similarities with Communitarianism). Cosmopolitanism shall be defined as a set of values that emphasizes the importance of individuals within NationStates and rejects strict membership laws in regions on the basis that it interferes with the ability of individuals to contribute and participate. As previously stated, for the Regionalist, political capital is purchased with a specific currency: demonstrations of loyalty. Whereas, for the Cosmopolitan, political capital is purchased with a vastly different currency: demonstrations of capacity for contribution and talent. In the eyes of a Cosmopolitan, it is not enough that one is a long-time member of the region or has their main-nation in the region, one needs to have the ability to do something significantly contributing to the region before any serious variant of respect is deserved. Obviously, one can see where it could be predicted that Cosmopolitans and Regionalists would follow incompatible political trajectories doomed to clash in political environments: Regionalists taking up the position of the “Old Guard” or the Revolutionaries securing the independence of the region, and Cosmopolitans taking up the position of the new establishment challenging the “Old Guard” or the Political Elite in some cases – both groups, Regionalists and Cosmopolitans in constant conflict to secure political power and alienate the other group from political power.

It is a main contention of this paper that what definition of “native” a state formally or informally adopts is of great conflict in a regional community because one popular definition favors Regionalism and one popular definition favors Cosmopolitanism. How a state answers the question, “What is a ‘true’ citizen?” is central to the distribution of power in a region (whether it is more inclusive or less) and signals either defeat or victory for Regionalists or Cosmopolitans. Bearing in mind this basic backdrop, context and background, the issue of Nativeness shall be explored further in greater detail.

Two Fundamental Conceptions of Nativeness

Ask yourself, what is a “native”?

When drafting the World Assembly Security Council resolution, “Liberate Land of the Liberals” in January of 2010, I did ask myself this question and posed it to #equilism, an IRC channel for Equilism citizens. The definition that “Liberate Land of the Liberals” used was constructed by Whamabama and agreed upon by the members of the channel at the time to be the best available definition. I will return to the Whamabama definition later, since it should first be explained that there is a logical necessity to answer the question (“what is a ‘native’?”) in one of either two different approaches of defining objects. A negative definition of “native” would explain what a non-native is and then identify natives as everyone else who is not a non-native (thus using “native” as a catch-all phrase). Whereas, a positive definition of “native” would explain what a native is and then identify non-natives as everyone else who is not a native (thus using “non-native” as a catch-call phrase).

Whamabama, a notable cosmopolitan 1 , provided “Liberate Land of the Liberals” with the following well cited definition of a “native”:

A native is “a nation which takes up residence in a region without the intention of furthering the goals and aims of a foreign force”.

The aforementioned definition is characteristically negative due to the use of “without”, since it could be formularized as simply “a native is not X”. Alternatively, the Whamabama definition could define a non-native as “a resident-nation with the intent to further the goals and aims of a foreign force” and define a native as “not a non-native” and achieve the same effect. A popular drawback to the Whamabama definition that is commonly expressed was first contributed by [violet], who suggested the inclusion of intent in the definition made determining Nativeness impossible 2. The obvious counterargument to [violet]’s argument is that, perhaps, who is truly native or not should remain relatively identifiable not absolutely identifiable. Viz. one must be vigilant for security threats and maintain developing opinions of the trustworthiness of resident-nations as information regarding individual’s beliefs, motivations and intentions expands exponentially (but never conclusively) in NationStates.

A more substantive objection raised to the Whamabama definition is that it does not go into more depth to describe a “native”. The definition makes no requirement for natives to be residents of a given region for a significant amount of time nor does it require natives to participate in their region or identify their region as their home-region. All that matters to the Whamabama definition is that one resides in the region and one is not there to further some foreign force – if one qualifies for those characteristics, one is defined as a “native” regardless of their potential distantness to the regional government, community and culture which some would argue is unacceptably shallow and inclusive for a definition of “native”. In general, any negative definition of “native” is going to run the risk of vulnerability to these counter-arguments since using “native” as the catch-all definition makes it more inclusive and open-ended. Ultimately, this paper will reject the need for greater exclusivity in the Whamabama definition but for those who are unsatisfied by the Whamabama definition for the reasons explained above, they may be more satisfied with a popular positive definition of “native”.

While game-staff and moderation struggled to deal with the issue of defining Nativeness and determining who was a “native” and a “non-native” to enforce the Region Griefing rule-set, Cogitation (a notable Game Moderator) provided a notable positive definition of “native”:

A native is any “nation that resides in the region long-term, where the owner of that nation considers that region to be home. [Whereas,] a "non-native" is the catch-all designation for any nations that aren't natives”.3

As Cogitation explains, “the "native" and "non-native" sets are all-inclusive and mutually-exclusive; a nation must be one or the other, not both, and not neither. Spies residing in a region long-term and working for an outside force are not natives. “ When someone asked whether puppet-nations could be natives of regions, Cogitation explained “Nativeness is a property of nations [not players], so if someone maintains two or more serious puppets as permanent or long-term residents of two or more different regions, then each puppet is a native of its respective region” . This is a slight withdrawal from the Cogitation definition, so perhaps the Cogitation definition would be better off to include “where the owner of that nation considers that region to be the home of said nation”.4

Nonetheless, the key characteristics of Nativeness in the Cogitation definition are long-term residency, identification with the region (considering it “home”) and commitment to the region (native has to be “serious” about being a resident of the region). The Nativeness “Test” is a much stricter set of conditions in the Cogitation model than the Whamabama model, since it is much easier to be defined as a non-native than a native in the Cogitation model whereas it is much easier to be defined as a native than a non-native in Whamabama model. This is a consequence of using a positive definition as opposed to a negative definition for Nativeness, before further expanding the conditions of the definition. It is the argument of this paper that Regionalists prefer Positive Nativeness and some sort of variant of the Cogitation model for determining Nativeness. Whereas Cosmopolitans prefer Negative Nativeness and some sort of variant of the Whamabama model.

This trend is predictable for many reasons, first and foremost because Positive Nativeness aligns with the political values of Regionalists: Positive Nativeness honours long-term residency, identification with the region and commitment – all characteristics valued by Regionalists. Thus, in theory, a state that uses Positive Nativeness in regional policy-making will construct a region that promotes and encourages a region more ideal to Regionalists, by ensuring that long-term commitment to a region is necessary to be recognized as native-residents since –a Regionalist would argue– without a strong division between native-residents and non-native residents there would not be enough motivation (or payoff) to justify committing to the region. Whereas Cosmopolitans will support Negative Nativeness because it, obviously, moves away from the Regionalist ideal state (which Positive Nativeness fosters) that seeks to alienate Cosmopolitans but also because Negative Nativeness in regional policymaking fosters a regional environment closer to the Cosmopolitan ideal by equalizing members’ commitment-based standing (e.g., how long have you been a citizen? Is your WA Nation in our region?) and distributing veneration on the basis of contributions (e.g., what have you done for our region? What can you offer as a citizen?) while distributing access to power more inclusively to all residents within a region.

There is a reoccurring political dynamic in NationStates Regional Politics that involves Regionalists and Cosmopolitans competing to edge their region’s state towards accepting or legitimizing either Positive or Negative Nativeness in every facet of their region’s policy-making. When a region clearly adopts the Positive Nativeness view in most policy-making decisions, this signals a clear victory for Regionalists and shifts the region closer to the Regionalist ideal state. Whereas, when a region clearly adopts the Negative Nativeness view in most policy-making decisions, this signals a clear victory for Cosmopolitans and shifts the region closer to the Cosmopolitan ideal state. There is no reason to suggest this dynamic will ever conclude or recede. Until this point, this paper has had descriptive and predictive value, but during the penultimate segment of this paper it is necessary to explore a prescriptive component. Thus, it shall be argued that Negative Nativeness is more preferable than Positive Nativeness, on the premise that Positive Nativeness poses more of a danger to society than Negative Nativeness.

A Rejection of Positive Nativeness

As it stands now, most Cosmopolitans subscribe to Negative Nativeness and most Regionalists subscribe to Positive Nativeness. Therefore, a rejection of Positive Nativeness that conforms only to the values of Cosmopolitanism is valueless, since, as previously explained, Cosmopolitanism lends itself to Negative Nativeness as opposed to Positive Nativeness anyway. A more powerful and valuable rejection of Positive Nativeness must reject Positive Nativeness on the grounds laid out by Regionalists – to convince even Regionalists that there is neither benefit nor security in subscribing to a doctrine of Positive Nativeness. This is a conclusion for most Regionalists that is, by right of their ideological stripes, counter-intuitive.

Grounded in Regionalist values, the following section will seek to reject Positive Nativeness on the basis that it is (i) impractical and (ii) less than ideal.

To explore how Positive Nativeness is impractical, let us first imagine the following scenario: blinded by a veil of ignorance as to who “you” are and shielded from knowing your talents, aspirations, experiences and knowledge of the game, you arrive in a region that welcomes you warmly and you spend several months as a resident in this region – your residency is very distant to the actual governing of the region and your connection with the region is apathetic and withdrawn. Eventually you come to learn that as a resident of this region, you have various rights endowed to you – the right of freedom of speech, the right to not be ejected and banned unfairly, various rights to participate in the government of the region etc. Likely, you would feel valued intrinsically as a resident of the region. Perhaps you would go inactive and remain distant from the region, while receiving the benefit of the rights endowed to you as a resident of the region. Alternatively, you may become more involved as a citizen. The decent and equitable treatment of all residents as “natives” (regional residents deserving of rights and privileges) bodes well towards making the latter more likely than not.

Alternatively, imagine a similar scenario with vastly different circumstances. Blinded by the same veil of ignorance, you arrive in a region that welcomes you ambivalently – you are treated warmly but also informed in a rather authoritarian manner that you must participate in X, Y and Z ways to deserve the various privileges of Nativeness. Your patience with this region is quickly diminishing as they expect investments of you immediately to be eligible for “privileges” which seem more like public liberties and goods every resident deserves on the basis of being a resident. Obviously, your departure from the region is about as proportionally likely as your growing frustration with the region.

As demonstrated in these thought experiments: Inclusiveness as opposed to exclusiveness has always fostered the probability of participation in any political system by the masses. Participation leads to commitment and loyalty to the region which is the virtue of Regionalism. But ultimately a community needs to initially deserve one’s commitment and loyalty for most to pursue commitment and loyalty, or alternatively, a beehive colony needs its honey. Furthermore, the most logical, practical and fair method for ensuring X recognizes Y as deserving is for Y to ensure it always recognizes what X deserves too. It is simply impractical and counterproductive for Regionalists to treat residents differently on the basis of some of these residents bearing the characteristics they want to encourage when this inequality undermines the potentiality of eagerness that fuels these encouraged characteristics imprimis.

Having explained why Positive Nativeness should be rejected for being impractical, it is obvious how Negative Nativeness (being more egalitarian) does not contradict the aforementioned test of inclusiveness whereas Positive Nativeness fails to perform in these regards. However, there is more to Positive Nativeness than simply impracticalness – Positive Nativeness also fails to provide an ideal environment, if we define an ideal environment broadly as a community that players feel comfortable to reside in and therefore, can maintain a reasonable desire for residency. When communities adopt Positive Nativeness it reconceives the community in a socially toxic conception that is suppressive, oppressive, potentially repressive and overall, unpleasant. Since when a social society defines “what is a native” based on a list of characteristics as well as expected levels of demonstrable devotion, then it becomes a matter of how well can any given member practice the art of dividing one’s self. There will always be ideas thought by members that may contradict the value-set prescribed by the elite in a state, it is thus valuable for members in these communities with entrenched Positive Nativeness to ensure that these thoughts remain private and not expressed publicly or otherwise these thought-dissenters may be thought of as outsiders. This is a form of suppression and is a notion as old as Orwellian Thought-Crime; I do not pretend to have discovered it. If the penalties for one’s private thoughts are great enough, this suppression may increase in extent to become repression: actively relegating one’s private dispute with the public affairs of the region to psychological non-existence.

It should also noted that the value-set prescribed by any state’s elite need not be particularly consistent – what one is required to express, support, think and do to be thought of as a “native” may change at the simple whim of the elite. One day, one may be regarded as a native, the next day, the expectations change and one is an outsider by the general expectation of the elite. Thus, those who remain as insiders in a state with enforced Positive Nativeness are not only the most suppressed or repressed individuals but also the ones most responsive to changing parameters and expectations. Being an actor in a social system based on Positive Nativeness, is not simply a matter of being one of the greatest actors or actresses in a reoccurring play, but being one of the greatest actors or actresses provided an unclear and ever-changing social script.

Additionally, when a state adopts Positive Nativeness, it not only leads to suppression or repression but also oppression and greater disparities of power in a given political system ruled by the state. This occurs because as the conditions for being considered a “native” get tougher, so do the conditions for being trusted with insider knowledge, political capital and, of course, power. Therefore, as a general rule, one can usually identify regional communities that have Positive Nativeness entrenched into their political policy on the basis of their centralization of power into the hands of key trusted insiders. It is not within the scope of this paper to argue the intrinsic good of democracy or oppose autocratic systems, except to suggest that the centralization of power into the hands of key trusted insiders bears a risk: with power comes responsibility, when power is shifted and centralized to certain insiders there is also a corresponding set of responsibilities that can be ignored, rejected or otherwise too overwhelming or overbearing to be fully satisfied.

The distribution of power can be dually centralized when customs or laws are fluid, changing and otherwise not enforced consistently or empirically. As explained before, Positive Nativeness does not prescribe that expectations of “natives” need be consistent, therefore custom-based or law-based sources of authority are not always completely derivable in communities that have accepted Positive Nativeness. In these particular states, charismatic authority and leadership, cults of personalities and the obligation to devote one’s self to these individuals are fostered to replace the emphasis on customs or laws. Some common examples of charismatic authorities and cults of personalities in NationStates include Francos Spain, Grub and Gates the God who all governed in obviously regionalist regions (i.e., The Pacific, 10000 Islands, Gatesville) and emphasized Positive Nativeness in the process of policy-making. For example, when laws were inconsistently applied in the Francos Spain era of The Pacific it is no wonder that the real devotion of Pacificans was not to the Civil Code for Uniform Justice and Order in The Pacific but to Francos Spain himself; inconsistencies are profuse in Early Pacifican Law: even Francos Spain admitted the enforcement of Code 1006 was “very selectively enforced”5 and Sir Paul once praised the freedom of dissent allowed by Code 1001 in the very same post that he noted the Political Accountability statutes (2000 series) were “selectively enforced on nations who are particularly annoying in their slanderous banter against the NPO”6. Although The Pacific invested legal authority to the High Judge of The Pacific, 10000 Islands and Gatesville invested that authority for determining guilt and the distribution of justice to their founders (The Gatesville Police Department acted as a “police” for civilians, but ultimate power was reserved for Gates the God 7).

This is not to suggest that any of the stated authorities were necessarily inefficient or morally wrong – once again that would be beyond the scope of this paper, but it will suffice to comment that although all of the listed “cult” heroes were very successful in NationStates precisely because of their effectual management of societies (and the people in them), any society that adopts Positive Nativeness and the centralization of power that comes with it, by doing so, increases the risk of distributing monolithic power to individuals who may not have the ability to satisfy the reciprocal responsibilities.

Concluding Thoughts

At the beginning of this paper, the question of how to determine who is a “native” and who is not a “native” was posed. It has been explained that there are two common “formulas” used to answer the question of how to determine Nativeness, namely the use of positive or negative conceptions of Nativeness. It has also been explained that there is a reasonable tendency for Regionalists to pursue Positive Nativeness and Cosmopolitans to pursue Negative Nativeness.

The final argument explored and laid out in this paper essentially is that everyone (regardless of political alignment) should reject Positive Nativeness and by logical extension, use a variation of Negative Nativeness. For Regionalists especially, this may seem counter-intuitive, but it has been argued that the outcome of Positive Nativeness is neither impractical nor ideal. Thus, I suppose the final question that Regionalists (if they agree with my premises and conclusion) must ask themselves is whether Negative Nativeness and Regionalism can be reconciled? Whether there are alternative (more inclusive) methods for promoting loyalty and strict regional identities that do not involve the uneven distribution of liberty and acceptance? This is a question that is not easily answered and I do not have a constructive answer at this time to provide in this paper. Reflection upon this question should be one of the main considerations of contemporary regional policy-making in NationStates, especially in communities that try to pursue the ideal conception of a region among Regionalists.

About the Author

Unibot, as depicted above, is a huge NationStates fanatic. He began his career in NationStates on May 25 2008. He since has passed the most World Assembly resolutions by one author, been commended by the World Assembly Security Council and emerged as a notable figure in NationStates Gameplay as the founder and head executive of the major defender organization, The United Defenders League. His first NationStates essay, An Analysis of NationStates Generations, originally posted on March 2009, garnered overall positive reviews. In real life, he is a senior undergraduate studying Political Science and Philosophy at the University of Waterloo, who enjoys playing guitar and creative writing.

Unibot also would like to dedicate this paper to his girlfriend for putting up with his huge time commitment to NationStates. She is too wonderful to justly describe, so he will just stick to Regionalism and Cosmopolitanism etc. instead.

6. “Ukroatia, you are allowed to question the practices and laws of the NPO, so long as your intent is not to subvert the government. We here have a passionate, open dialogue about the governance of our region, and we thank you for joining in. [...] With respect to the political accountability statutes (series 2), these are also selectively enforced on nation who are particularly annoying in their slanderous banter against the NPO,” attributed to Sir Paul from Feb 27, 2004; Taken from http://newpacificorder.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=archive&thread=440&page=1#9766; Code 1001 prohibits “a declaration of dislike for the Delegate of the Pacific or his policies with intent to subvert the Government” whereas the relevant 2000 code series prohibited “expression of dislike for the policies of the Pacific Government or those Governments allied with or declared friendly by the Pacific Government” and “expression of views considered counter to those of the Pacific Government”;

An interesting read. I especially like how Regionalism has been paralleled with the "Old Guards". This can be illustrated by a small example I experienced first hand.

Recently the guys at Illuminati conducted a social experiment. They abolished all Citizenship Laws and allowed anyone with an account on the forums, from any region to vote on their most important laws. This immediately led to the collapse of the 7-year old Imperialist Regionalist Government and got replaced with a Libertarian Cosmopolitan Government.

Rayne Xerces wrote:An interesting read. I especially like how Regionalism has been paralleled with the "Old Guards". This can be illustrated by a small example I experienced first hand.

I think that Regionalists generally tend to be Old Guards, on the basis that it would be rather meaningless for someone to emphasize devotion and loyalty to the region if they themselves haven't demonstrated loyalty to the region.

However I am quick to point out that Regionalists can be the revolutionaries against a Cosmopolitan state:

The Polysemes of Nativeness wrote:Regionalists taking up the position of the “Old Guard” or the Revolutionaries securing the independence of the region, and Cosmopolitans taking up the position of the new establishment challenging the “Old Guard” or the Political Elite in some cases – both groups, Regionalists and Cosmopolitans in constant conflict to secure political power and alienate the other group from political power.

A controversial example (and highly debatable) is the August Revolution, Francos Spain overthrowing Thedoc after only spending three weeks in the region.

"[...] I have brought stability to NationStates most anarchic region. Finally a Pacific will have a concrete and constant administration. There are so many insincere players out there and so many subversive rogues trying to commandeer power who are no longer a threat to the region. No longer will there be ephemeral regimes to disrupt the stability of one of NationStates' largest regions," - Francos Spain from Sept 25, 2003 in an interview with NetWorkRadio's AckbarRedux.

"The NPO Revolution was a revolution over anarchy and stagnation. The former delegates of the Pacific before me had let the region languish and decay, only showing up when it was time to defend their authority. Indeed, Francos Spain was booted from the Pacific by former delegate Thedoc, simply for encroaching on his power base. However, I returned. The fat king who only idled on his throne was deposed for the active, ambitious, and enthusiastic New Order. It was only natural that I first repay Thedoc the favor, then sweep away the other remnants of his "government." Most of the ejections that followed were the staving off of military bands only intent on reviving this age of chaos which preceded us," - Francos Spain from June 22, 2004 in an interview with NationStates Broadcasting Company's Brock Smith.

Obviously, Francos Spain believed TheDoc's administration to be something like a Regionalist's Perspective of a Cosmopolitan state: anarchic inclusiveness, no concrete regional identity and run by people who only cared about having power in the region but otherwise are 'subversive rogues'. Ironically, of course, Francos Spain's revolution would have him labelled an "exploitative userite" and "a subversive rogue" by his own standards but I would imagine he would say it's different because he did it for the good of the region: all the other guys are subversive rogues and opportunists.

As I typed this out I realized there is a much clearer (and more contemporary) example of a Regionalist being the challenger to the Old Guard: Frak's rhetoric against The South Pacific's administration. Frak was basically a Regionalist who believed the administration of The South Pacific to be run by outsiders and defenders who allegedly broke the election laws of The South Pacific. He even asked members of the South Pacific to disqualify various candidates and only run LadyRebels and King J as candidates who were, according to him, "dedicated to [TSP's] forum and [TSP's] government". LR and King J are dedicated to the South Pacific, but besides that point, Frak put a lot of stock in demonstrations of loyalty to the region. I doubt however that this was anything more than the choice of rhetoric that Frak used to try to convince people and give himself political credibility -- revolutionaries perform better when they can reconceive themselves as the "watchdogs" or "guardians" of the region, which ironically is something that, I would argue, Francos Spain was very good at accomplishing.

While choosing for a negative or positive definition of nativeness is a binary choice, regionalism vs cosmopolitanism isn't. Communities will become more closed (regionalist) in a time of crisis, and more open (cosmopolitanist) in times of peace and tranquility. This isn't unique to NationStates, it's 'normal' human group dynamic. And it changes over time, which is how Unibot can end up being wlecomed in a feeder community one moment, while later on gets kicked out for being disruptive/disloyal/too different/an outsider/etc...

I don't think regional communities consciously actually choose between regionalism and cosmopolitanism the way it is presented in this paper. It's a label placed upon them based on the how they're perceived (by the author of the paper) after they've made their choices. Politics is far more complex than this.

To be frank, the premise of this entire study is crap and I disagree with this assessment wholeheartedly.

I will enjoy rebutting and bringing to light the effect "Cosmopolitanism" has had.

Francos Spain was a guardian, he did not employ empty rhetoric as that is your department.

The Userites elected to The South Pacific's highest office - Topid and Belschaft, were utter failures and would disappear after elections.

They were elected not by "cosmopolitans" but by "region whores", a cross-regional and defender-aligned band that exploits the democratic institutions of feeders to put their friends in power with no consideration of qualifications or of the local conditions.

Topid did not want to be delegate, in fact he helped legislate himself out of the position. I can produce those logs.

Belschaft did nothing with his position but continues to parade around as if he had started the SPA and the trend of active Warzone/neutral gameplay. Antariel's record run in Australia was immediately preceded by my own capture and work. A scathing yet honest attack of his failed record was met with immature evasion. You can find the posts.

That was "cosmopolitanism" in action. The delegate who finally moved TSP for the better was my man, while Unibot was whining and crusading against him, and lining up behind the old guard because he found Hileville insufficiently defender, while the TSP old guard felt indebted to Unibot post-Devonitians.

The South Pacific is a perfect case study of Userite exploitation. You will find in the halls of the UDL forums proposals to have UDL advertising on the South Pacific's WFE. This kind of proposal would undoubtedly get "double support" because of UDL inside and outside the South Pacific. It was only shoved back in the file cabinet after its existence was prematurely leaked.

This is called being a region whore not being a cosmopolitan.

This entire essay is Userite banality. Unibot's only alignment is his militant, choking quasi-Empire style defenderism of supreme arrogance and overreach. It is no wonder "regionilists" like Francos Spain are forced to reject liberal democratic institutions when their systems are all to often subverted by Userites.

In the eyes of a Cosmopolitan, it is not enough that one is a long-time member of the region or has their main-nation in the region, one needs to have the ability to do something significantly contributing to the region before any serious variant of respect is deserved.

This is a farcical distinction.

Cosmopolitans taking up the position of the new establishment challenging the “Old Guard” or the Political Elite in some cases

Except in The South Pacific and likely anywhere else when it served defender interests to keep the Old Guard. Another lie.

Your "rejection" of Positive Nativeness is similarly garbage, because once again you are describing the two sides incorrectly as is to be expected when we consider the author and his bias.

It is a question of Userites and Feederites. You did not vote for people in TSP and TNP for ability. The votes there are highly colored and correlated on your "cosmopolitan" end with defender associations. The quickest way to get elected in the current TNP and the old TSP is to join the UDL. You will find the same faces everywhere. Why is Earth22 still positioned in TRR? Why is the "cosmopolitan" Wham still delegate?

The region is dead but you can be sure if any challenge is mounted Unibot and the UDL will squash them immediately. Which is odd because Unibot has in the past used his army as leverage against Sedgistan's delegacy, claiming he would be open to supporting what he would often otherwise call a "coup" or "insurrection" only because he had a petulant disagreement with Sedgistan.

That is defender arbitration for you.

Any political force will seek out its own members anyway, it is the fact that Userites do this to the extent that it becomes destructive.

Your Positive Nativeness is also garbage when it comes to claims of participational ability. If I want to take measures to insure a band of region whores does not come in to my region that does not make me an authoritarian. In fact I would argue I am enhancing the participation of actual natives who will not be displaced by foreign and ignorant support.

IE: Topid running for Chair against Hileville, likely would have won if he had not dropped out.

Sheepa taking over the SPA/MoS after Belschaft got out of the way.

Offensive TRR-defender group think at "outside the circle" members like that Christian guy, Simon and others telling them they either do not have enough "experience" to pursue office (gee, while why not GIVE them some then?) or telling them to shut up about the slow state of the region, because the current leadership is doing everything they can (yes...clearly).

In these particular states, charismatic authority and leadership, cults of personalities and the obligation to devote one’s self to these individuals are fostered to replace the emphasis on customs or laws.

This is absolutely hilarious and biased. I'd argue that defenders/Userites constantly employ the same tactics.

Look at the #alara crowd. They always hide behind and establish a cult of personality when it suits there purpose, and it is usually a female player as this makes it easier.

Neenee, Naivetry, and Earth22 all had iterations of cult of personality and I would argue Earth22 is an attempt to emulate that whether she realizes the machinations of Biyah or not. She was used as a friendly face to spearhead a throwback to the Empire, which is an overt move against the established "customs" of the region. Userites form a collective cult of personality in places like TSP where they flout election law to get each other elected. And once again "liberalism" measures by defenders are really all too often "exploitation" measures.

I find it funny that Mr. Freedom Cosmopolitanism and Change was negotiating with fake (but what he would call) Francoists in order to set himself up as Police Chief of the Feeders. You want to be the policeman of nationstates and I find your overreaching defenderism to be the source of many problems, not solutions. This study is nothing more than propaganda with no grounding in any facts or regional analysis, only hypothetical nonsense.

People defect and run from the UDL. I can produce logs of Unibot's incessant whining and attacking young members who didn't have the time to stay on for whatever liberation.

People came to Francos Spain, and people would rally behind him now if he came back. The idea that his way of doing things is inherently more restrictive or less desirable to players is nonsense. His multi-dimensional gameplay and NPO was a benefit to those inside and outside his region. The UDL's region whoring is a benefit to only those within their ranks.

I also agree with Ballo's general assessment but point out to him that this "study" is obviously a defender propaganda piece, so no need to raise concerns of reality it has already been factored out of the equation.

Last edited by Anur-Sanur on Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:30 am, edited 9 times in total.

"Mallah Anur Uth Rumah"

"There are two kinds of scientific progress: the methodical experimentation and categorization which gradually extend the boundaries of knowledge, and the revolutionary leap of genius which redefines and transcends those boundaries. Acknowledging our debt to the former, we yearn, nonetheless, for the latter." Academician Zakharov

Ballotonia wrote:While choosing for a negative or positive definition of nativeness is a binary choice, regionalism vs cosmopolitanism isn't. Communities will become more closed (regionalist) in a time of crisis, and more open (cosmopolitanist) in times of peace and tranquility. This isn't unique to NationStates, it's 'normal' human group dynamic. And it changes over time, which is how Unibot can end up being wlecomed in a feeder community one moment, while later on gets kicked out for being disruptive/disloyal/too different/an outsider/etc...

I do agree that communities fluctuate between regionalism and cosmopolitanism -- since these philosophies will influence their policy-making little by little. But I also believe that there are people with fairly entrenched regionalist or cosmopolitan positions (obviously people do change however, but in smaller increments) and essentially, their political environments change. When the region is active, everything is good and cheery and one's "old boys" fill the government's cabinet, a regionalist-at-heart has no political capital to argue for new policies to curb immigration by cosmopolitanism -- when everything is not so cheery, they have the political capital to reveal their own regionalist policies, usually after a group of cosmopolitans have revealed their own principles during the policy-making process or alternatively, Regionalists feel threatened. This creates the eternal dynamic I was explaining in regards to NationStates Gameplay where Regionalists and Cosmopolitans jockey for power.

Also, there's no need to pick on me: you were also the ADN's #1 Member-Who-Was-Never-A-Member, according to every propagandist who ever tried to get you out of The North Pacific.

I don't think regional communities consciously actually choose between regionalism and cosmopolitanism the way it is presented in this paper. It's a label placed upon them based on the how they're perceived (by the author of the paper) after they've made their choices. Politics is far more complex than this.

Whether they are aware of their own values and their contrasts is also, irrelevant. What matters is they do have these values and they will bring them them "to the table" constantly during reoccurring political conflicts.

[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way, but Unibot is not a typical NS player.

Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic with the best of intentions.

Ah the bitter rantings of a self-proclaimed feederite, who's tried to undermine and put at risk almost every GCR government.

Let's examine some of his specific claims.

The region is dead but you can be sure if any challenge is mounted Unibot and the UDL will squash them immediately.

By challenge I assume you mean replacing the delegate against the will of the citizens? We call this a coup, Frak. Try respecting and following the rules of GCRs and you may learn that.

And you think this is some grand revelation that the UDL would move to stop a coup. And a coup in favour of who? Simon who has been absent previously? Christian Democrats who would disregard the will of the region if it went against his morality? I don't seriously believe you think them good delegates. No you just want some easy to control and manipulate puppets.

Your Positive Nativeness is also garbage when it comes to claims of participational ability. If I want to take measures to insure a band of region whores does not come in to my region that does not make me an authoritarian. In fact I would argue I am enhancing the participation of actual natives who will not be displaced by foreign and ignorant support.

This is regionalism to the extreme, and it is not what anyone but the most ardent Francoists would subscribe to. To discriminate on the basis of where you have citizenship, barring instances of citizenships in regions your region is at war with, is authoritarian, no matter what way you want to spin it with this 'true native' bullshit.

Neenee, Naivetry, and Earth22 all had iterations of cult of personality and I would argue Earth22 is an attempt to emulate that whether she realizes the machinations of Biyah or not. She was used as a friendly face to spearhead a throwback to the Empire, which is an overt move against the established "customs" of the region. Userites form a collective cult of personality in places like TSP where they flout election law to get each other elected. And once again "liberalism" measures by defenders are really all too often "exploitation" measures.

Oh please do tell me about the 'customs' of Osiris. Explain what you know of them to me. As an ignorant supporter of the Osiris Empire, I must not know of these 'customs' that existed before, that were driven out by 'foreigners' like Earth, Biyah, Oliver and myself, all of whom hadn't been in Osiris at all before the Empire's formation.

It is a question of Userites and Feederites. You did not vote for people in TSP and TNP for ability. The votes there are highly colored and correlated on your "cosmopolitan" end with defender associations. The quickest way to get elected in the current TNP and the old TSP is to join the UDL.

Hence why Tim, an active raider at the time, Mcmasterdonia, who's never been part of the UDL and Romanoffia, who's a long standing critic of 'unfettered defending', were all elected to the Council of Five at the start of September, and why Tim was further elected to the post of Vice-Delegate, and Kingborough elected as speaker of the Regional Assembly, a full two weeks after he left the organisation.

Cerian Quilor wrote:There's a difference between breaking the rules, and being well....Cromarty...

<Koth>all sexual orientations must unite under the relative sexiness of madjack

Former Delegate of OsirisBrommander of the Cartan Militia: They're Taking The Cartans To Isengard!Кромартий

I was going to do an in-depth reply, but then I thought... it's Anur, and he's trolling as usual.

Your use of userite/feederite would do a PRP'er proud, even if you werent around for the times when those terms actually meant something. Further, you don't know Francos, don't pretend to know his mind.

And since you were caught playing around in Osiris, doing your usual games, you are the world's worst authority on Osirian customs. Kthxbye.

~B

-Citizen of Osiris-Lord Mavros, Patriarch of The House of Rahl.-Better at this than you, live with it.

So sleep soundly in your beds tonight, for judgement falls upon you at first light. I'm the hand of God, I'm the dark messiah, I'm the vengeful one.

Wait, a throwback to the Empire? I couped!?! Damn, that election last week must have been all for nothing!

And... I have a cult of personality!? Whaaat. Well, at least I like that song. :/

"Why is Earth22 still positioned in TRR?" <--Because I was elected, and no one's challenged me. I've been in TRR for well over a year and a half now, having held an Officer position (one that I actually kicked Unibot out of), and now just as Speaker. Just..facts..

Also, seriously, Earth22's one of my mains but I haven't used the darn 22 in ages. Just a bit behind, eh?

To the rest of that pile of nonsense, you really come from no authority, so no point in even jokingly responding at the rest of that silliness.

The region is dead but you can be sure if any challenge is mounted Unibot and the UDL will squash them immediately.

By challenge I assume you mean replacing the delegate against the will of the citizens? We call this a coup, Frak. Try respecting and following the rules of GCRs and you may learn that.

And you think this is some grand revelation that the UDL would move to stop a coup. And a coup in favour of who? Simon who has been absent previously? Christian Democrats who would disregard the will of the region if it went against his morality? I don't seriously believe you think them good delegates. No you just want some easy to control and manipulate puppets.

"Against the will of the citizens". What citizens? The region whores that clog the arteries of TRR? TRR administration has no citizens, TRR has skeletons. What rules of the GCRs are you talking about? Has Unibot written up his edicts already? The rules say I can endorse and tart whoever I want, and I think people should when they have a dead delegate who has been that way his entire term and deserves no further respect or time.

You arguments against the specific people I mentioned only serve to further emphasize the nature of defender arbitration.

It is not an exercise of justice. It is an exercise of cherry picking candidates passive to the region whore agenda. The region was quiet until a challenge was raised, and then all the region whores came out of the woodwork to protect Wham's stagnating delegacy.If you call these "citizens" or "cosmopolitans" so be it, I call it being a region whore.

This is regionalism to the extreme, and it is not what anyone but the most ardent Francoists would subscribe to. To discriminate on the basis of where you have citizenship, barring instances of citizenships in regions your region is at war with, is authoritarian, no matter what way you want to spin it with this 'true native' bullshit.

That's what a region whore would say. Well done at playing your part. Notice I said "measures" to prevent region whoring, I did not spell them out in the way you describe but well done taking a play out of the defender rhetoric book.

Oh please do tell me about the 'customs' of Osiris. Explain what you know of them to me. As an ignorant supporter of the Osiris Empire, I must not know of these 'customs' that existed before, that were driven out by 'foreigners' like Earth, Biyah, Oliver and myself, all of whom hadn't been in Osiris at all before the Empire's formation.

I think you are missing the point, which is the employ of Lyanna Stark as a face for other players. This speaks to the pernicious nature of Userites, as is mirrored in the crudest manner by your arguments against me. Biyah has always hidden behind a mask, and that mask is often a female player from which a cult of personality is established.

Be more liberal with the phrase. I'm not saying Kim Jong Il, that isn't always at least the style...at least not now.

Earth22 right now is more in the style of Naivetry, less wise but more gregarious. The relationship is a useful symbol of Userite rhetoric, a friendly face being animated by a controlling intent. Look at the history of your leaders before you call me ignorant.

Hence why Tim, an active raider at the time, Mcmasterdonia, who's never been part of the UDL and Romanoffia, who's a long standing critic of 'unfettered defending', were all elected to the Council of Five at the start of September, and why Tim was further elected to the post of Vice-Delegate, and Kingborough elected as speaker of the Regional Assembly, a full two weeks after he left the organisation.

Tim defected and had not been raiding with any activity when he was elected. What a coincidence.

The NPA is a UDL appendage. Only a fool looks at it and does not see the influence of defenderism. And here I do not say Useritism, but defenderism. Eluvatar has done a great deal of good for the region I believe, more than most of his predecessors. He is a defender, but is not a Userite. I believe he straddles the two and his good and often neutral intentions are hijacked or enable those who are clear Userites, like Unibot. Anyone who has been in the UDL as I have is aware that in terms of GP command, Unibot is quite an amateur. The UDL has benefited greatly from the likes of Eluvatar and other commanders/triggerman. Yet as Chief Deputy Unibot picked an RPer with a comparatively ignorant capability of command, and one who was always eager to play the Biblical Importance to the Naivetry in TSP elections, Unibot's stage of Userite aggression.

And since you were caught playing around in Osiris, doing your usual games, you are the world's worst authority on Osirian customs. Kthxbye.

I don't know what you are referring to Biyah. Perhaps you've caught the wrong fish again?

As for Earth22, your name is relevant because the facts are relevant be they from the halls of Unknown or Osiris.

To the rest of that pile of nonsense, you really come from no authority, so no point in even jokingly responding at the rest of that silliness.

Nothing I said is silly but well played with the weak ad hominem. What is most disappointing in your response is really a reflection of Biyah. Obviously his semi-retired state has limited his choice of masks, with Neenee and Naivetry no longer around. They would have come up with better responses, so I'm afraid I'm quite disappointed.

Nothing I have said is silliness. The defender delegates of TSP were disgraces. I challenge anyone to contest me on their record. Contest me on the UDL's role in the region and I can simply pull up threads that will make the point for me.

It is why your name is important Earth22, it is because the facts matter. It is because the facts are there clouded behind the fog of Userite propaganda and insolence.

Osiris is insular. Anyone who looks at the electoral history can see that. This is again why Unibot's study is disgustingly misleading. The only closed, repressive group is that of the United Regions Whores and their iterations, not the feederites who look to Francos Spain.

And once again, while you dismiss me with rhetorical dribble I posses facts and knowledge of the events.

Unibot lobbying to become policeman of the feeders.The proposal to advertise on feeder and founderless WFEsUDL writings on attacking Sedgistan's delegacy of TRRLogs and threads of failed Userite delegatesConfirmed UDL region whoringA wave of skill and talent running away from the UDL.

You are both the UDL's Chief of Feeder Affairs and the delegate of Osiris, with your vice delegate an #alara denizen.

Unibot can call that cosmopolitanism. I call that dangerous. The thing is frankly I don't care about Osiris, that fight was lost early. The problem is you will take that mandate and do everything in your power, even perhaps rousing ignorant Osirian residents, against any change in other feeders. That is called being a policewoman of the world, being a Userite, being Big Brother, being in effect all the things people know are bad. But you wrap it up in "freedom" and vilification of of your opponents (couper, renegade, blah blah blah) so you can install another Userite puppet.

At the end of the day one side of the game thinks they have a moral superiority and right to tell the other side how to play while gleefully keeping the masses ignorant of their private games, and they exercise that view by force and under the most insidious forms of propaganda. This study fails to acknowledge the region whoring truth, which is why it is not a study but a propaganda piece.

Last edited by AS22 on Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I would first like to prove that your arguments do not hold true for foundered regions, and that Founders have the exclusive right to make the decision who is a "Native" of their region. Founders create regions to satisfy their own ideals, not others. Thus the founder may eject anyone based on either ideology and still be in the right, not violating Native rights. If the founder thinks like a cosmopolitain he will only eject or ban nations from his region if they are causing harm. If he tends towards regionalism, the founder will "cut fat" from the region, ejecting the nations not contribuiting anything to the his regional objectives. Since the founder is the determiner of the region's goals and structure, either policy is acceptible.

Thus, there can be almost no question that a Founder considers the nations within his region to also be Natives of his region. If he thought otherwise he would eject them. No matter what happens to a region, the Founder is still the owner. In regions where the founder has relinquished administrative powers, the same concept applies only in cases where the founder is also the Regional Delegate. Should another nation take control of the region, he may make decisions contrary to those of the founder. Thus we see that the term "Native" becomes hard to define in regions where the founder holds no power.

Fortunately for regions like the one described above, there is an objective source which may define the natives of the region. Again, I would like to emphasize that whether the founder has chosen to define Natives from a positive or negative view is irrelevant, since the founder is the owner of the region. The reason that a region with a non-executive founder makes such a good example of this concept is that the non-executive founder, or owner of an effectively founderless region, may define the natives of his region in a manner contrary to the state of affairs within the region; further, he will have no power to alter the state of affairs. In such regions the definition of a Native is simply whoever the founder says is a native.

In founderless regions, however, there is no objective source to draw upon to determine the natives of the region. Although in most cases the founder may still come back and reclaim the region if he chooses, still effectively owning the region, there is no way to certainly determine what the founder would do in a given situation. Although you may refer to a set of rules written by the founder to estaiblish positive nativeness, and although you may refer to the "no harm to the region" rule to establish negetive nativeness, there is no way to ascertain who the founder would consider a native or not. There are too many varying degrees by which the founder could establish negetive or positive nativeness. This concept applies to all founderless regions regardless of the founder's written goals or ideologies, because negetive or positive nativeness is a measure of the extent to which the founder enforced those goals.

However, even in founderless regions it is possible to obtain a snapshot of a group of nations the founder once considered to be natives of his region. As stated above, founders only allow nations into their region if they consider them natives of the region. Whether this means that these nations were supposed to contribute to the region or simply not cause harm to the region is up to the founder. Take the regions Planet X and Psychotic Dictatorships for example. The founder of Planet X allows anyone into his region. On the other hand, MENATA-LEE ILL of Psychotic Dictatorships quickly ejects nations from his region if they don't meet certain standards of activity and national statistics. Is there any reason to assume that these two founders do not consider the nations in their region to be natives of the region? It should be obvious that every nation currently in Planet X and Psychotic Dictatorships is a Native of that region. Thus, as long as a region has a founder, one may obtain a snapshot of the natives of that region.

All of this dialouge is just rhetoric unless it has some application to founderless regions, where the definition of a Native can determine the fate of the region. I have proven that nations who reside in a region while there is a founder are, in fact, natives. However, I have not addressed a any definitions of natives if the founder ceased to exist. It would logically follow that if a nation was at one time a native of a region, never left the region, and was never ejected by the founder, the nation would probably still be a native. Thus, nations who reside within a region before the founder of the region ceases to exist continue to be natives if the founder does cease to exist.

After the founder of a region ceases to exist, it becomes impossible to safely determine who is a native and who is not, and since sleepers pose a danger to the region, there is also a security issue. At this point it would seem that there can be no more new Natives of the region, but only citizens and residents. I would go into more detail, but since I have accomplished the objective of my response there is no need to go further. Unibot, Nativeness is more dependent upon a region's founder than it is on contribution or lack of harm one poses to the region.

AS22 wrote:But you wrap it up in "freedom" and vilification of of your opponents (couper, renegade, blah blah blah) so you can install another Userite puppet.

Wait: you treat your opponents without vilification? Perhaps "userites", "skeletons" and "region-whores" were supposed to be "positive" terms?

Do you or do not deny trying to overthrow the governments of the Rejected Realms and the South Pacific? I do not think that the term, "couper", for you, is particularly unwarranted.

I do treat them vilification. Perhaps in my description of your action I did not choose the right word.

The employ of "couper"/"renegade" is often rhetorically and politically misleading when these terms are shouted at WA residents in mass. Firstly it implies an inherent danger to the resident, and secondly it implies that the resident is a stakeholder in the forum government which is often not the case. Lastly it implies the forum government is righteous of legitimate, which I would argue is often not the case.

You can call me what you like and my history is known and obvious. What I disagree with is your narrative. I reject your organization's role as a "bastion of liberty" or whatever similar foolishness you describe yourself as. I reject the premise of your entire study because "cosmopolitans" - Userites, are a threat in that they subvert sovereignty. Vilification becomes necessary against the Userite opponent, to dispel the significant propaganda they constantly employ and which is often accepted as truth absent of challenge.

This is because sadly their modern enemies -today's update raiders- are politically aloof if not decidedly apolitical but that is another matter.

I return to your study as much as you would like to distract and deflect with some weak insinuations about things I no longer hide. Userites are the greatest threat to the feeders because they subvert sovereignty.

I use ‘sovereignty’ in the sense of a distinctive mode of consciousness. A sovereign does not take its direction or orientation from another state or force, or act in a shadow. A sovereign creates an identity and future trajectory out of itself. No, this is not some closed door scenario, in the course of establishing sovereign trajectory there will be amalgamation of ideas both foreign and domestic. But the resultant vector should be proudly and unabashedly unique. Office holders’ primary responsibility should be to the maintenance and care of that trajectory rather than simply office holding as an insurance matter for foreign interests.

Yet it has been in the custom of your organization and associates to seek out office not to create sovereignty but to straddle between neglect and outright suppression.

In TRR once again, despite the criticisms of the specific people involved - there were internal moves towards a new sovereignty, new ideas put forward for a rebirth. Those ideas were rejected from one who does not care about TRR’s sovereignty because he has, for all intents and purposes, abdicating the throne. The empty husk is uninteresting, internal opposition is displaced by an overtly militant gang of region whores (hiding behind the trappings of elected office), and the region remains an #alara trophy. There is no real sovereignty because there is no real identity or independent impetus. This stagnation has the odd effect of masking the disrepair of the region from the masses at large, to whom the forum becomes rather irrelevant if they are conscious of it at all.

This is what I talked about in TSP. I urged Hileville constantly, to resist your constant encroachment, your insidious attempts to knock us off our own free trajectory.

May we have our own endoscanner?

No, the UDL will provide for your security. We will also keep secret plans to advertise on your WFE as compensation for this security service.

May we have our own military outlook?

No, we will bog you down in neutrality and laborious laws to afford you no military liberty until we can pivot you back to defenderism.

May we have candidates not from your militant organization?

No, UDL soldiers such as Belschaft and Eluvatar will continue to run for election despite minimal contribution and record of absence. We will caution against local outreach or candidates who are “inexperienced”. Our stooge Milograd will run in every delegate election despite a rather non-existent record of service so should any local get far enough in the process, we can move in and push Milograd into the seat.

May we follow our own laws?

No, UDL law will suffice. When Belschaft decides he does not want to play anymore the delegacy of your region will fall to Unibot. The fact that you have established Vice Delegates is irrelevant. When Unibot wants to evade trial he will resign and run away. We will continue to prosecute elections while flouting the endorsement cap, and we insured only our candidates reached the final stage so no one will of any “repute” will complain anyway. We will enforce foreign and inter-regional law on you as part of a political calculation, mainly because we want the UDL to have police powers across the feeders.

I could go on. This is “cosmopolitanism”. It is the purposeful subversion of sovereignty. There shall be no independent path because your leaders will, through “elections” (march of the region-whores) be our leaders. Your military will wear a different flag but it better damn well be like our military or it will either not exist or be limited to frivolity.

Your governments must be boring, stagnant, and easy for us to return to when you get out of line. We demand equal rights, citizen status, and voting powers even though you only see us during election season, and we have no care for the education of our non-forum residents even though we purport to speak for them.

Francos Spain established sovereignty in TP. You practice subversion and were to be tried for it. You exploit democratic institutions as a leech, sucking on every pore and weighing down any direction that in anathema to you through pernicious region-whoring until you have dragged down your opponents and then you leave you absentee stooges only to return to squash the next challenger.

Your record on arbitration is evident but you would establish yourself as police chief of the feeders MPA or not.

That is the problem with you, that the next Francos Spain will likely never exist because you would snuff him out in an instant, with the Pacific nothing but a tired fortress and your modern raider enemies abstain from these politics, to their detriment.

There is practical "raider" reasons to not abstain from feeder politics, but they have ceded that ground to defenders and the Pacific's gates are shut. Even AMOM insists on a neutral, pitiful military. You have through your demagoguery ensured feeder armies will either be defenderist or irrelevant, and you will spit in the face of your supposed ideals to keep it that way.

AS22 wrote:Our stooge Milograd will run in every delegate election despite a rather non-existent record of service so should any local get far enough in the process, we can move in and push Milograd into the seat.

I am a local in TSP, and I have a solid record of service to the region. If you truly believe otherwise, feel free to provide support for your claims. I would love to hear your argument if it actually exists.

Last edited by Milograd on Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:16 pm, edited 4 times in total.

AS22 wrote:Our stooge Milograd will run in every delegate election despite a rather non-existent record of service so should any local get far enough in the process, we can move in and push Milograd into the seat.

Galiantus wrote:I would first like to prove that your arguments do not hold true for foundered regions, and that Founders have the exclusive right to make the decision who is a "Native" of their region. Founders create regions to satisfy their own ideals, not others. Thus the founder may eject anyone based on either ideology and still be in the right, not violating Native rights. If the founder thinks like a cosmopolitain he will only eject or ban nations from his region if they are causing harm. If he tends towards regionalism, the founder will "cut fat" from the region, ejecting the nations not contribuiting anything to the his regional objectives. Since the founder is the determiner of the region's goals and structure, either policy is acceptible.

Thus, there can be almost no question that a Founder considers the nations within his region to also be Natives of his region. If he thought otherwise he would eject them. No matter what happens to a region, the Founder is still the owner. In regions where the founder has relinquished administrative powers, the same concept applies only in cases where the founder is also the Regional Delegate. Should another nation take control of the region, he may make decisions contrary to those of the founder. Thus we see that the term "Native" becomes hard to define in regions where the founder holds no power.

Fortunately for regions like the one described above, there is an objective source which may define the natives of the region. Again, I would like to emphasize that whether the founder has chosen to define Natives from a positive or negative view is irrelevant, since the founder is the owner of the region.

No, this is entirely incorrect. Founders *may* have the exclusive right to make the decision regarding who is a "Native" of their region if the regional constitution permits this right (they always retain the power to make this decision), some Founders give away this right using law to limit their powers. Furthermore this decision is rarely done "directly", it's done indirectly.. its done when the Founder decides "you don't have the right to vote like the other residents", " you don't the right to participate like the other residents", "you don't have the right to be here like the other residents do" etc. etc. etc., which in turn crafts the overall policy opinion of whether you are a native or not.

Furthermore, "Native" is more than just "who is allowed to reside in the region", it's who is allowed to participate in the functioning of the government and get all those rights and privileges that say an ambassadorial account (someone who moves a puppet over to a region to "represent" the other region) is not entitled to, or say, a recruiter who moves to a Recruiter-Friendly region.

Additionally, there are many many nations in 10ki, but only some of them have the right to vote in their elections for example -- I believe you cannot have ties to any other region or organization if to vote. All are residents, but for the purposes of this academic study, only some of those are "natives" deserving of more rights.

I suppose what you are correct to bear to light: there are rights given to non-native residents too. This study just switchs between "non-native" and "native" when those rights grow more distributed, leaving some with very insignificant rights and privileges compared to others. I do indeed simplify things, but for a reason, like all political science if it becomes too withdrawn, it becomes insignificant and boring -- I would prefer providing one with a theoretic lens to observe various conflicts and political issues with that (hopefully) will accurately provide insight as to what is going on.

Galiantus wrote:I would first like to prove that your arguments do not hold true for foundered regions, and that Founders have the exclusive right to make the decision who is a "Native" of their region. Founders create regions to satisfy their own ideals, not others. Thus the founder may eject anyone based on either ideology and still be in the right, not violating Native rights. If the founder thinks like a cosmopolitain he will only eject or ban nations from his region if they are causing harm. If he tends towards regionalism, the founder will "cut fat" from the region, ejecting the nations not contribuiting anything to the his regional objectives. Since the founder is the determiner of the region's goals and structure, either policy is acceptible.

Thus, there can be almost no question that a Founder considers the nations within his region to also be Natives of his region. If he thought otherwise he would eject them. No matter what happens to a region, the Founder is still the owner. In regions where the founder has relinquished administrative powers, the same concept applies only in cases where the founder is also the Regional Delegate. Should another nation take control of the region, he may make decisions contrary to those of the founder. Thus we see that the term "Native" becomes hard to define in regions where the founder holds no power.

Fortunately for regions like the one described above, there is an objective source which may define the natives of the region. Again, I would like to emphasize that whether the founder has chosen to define Natives from a positive or negative view is irrelevant, since the founder is the owner of the region.

No, this is entirely incorrect. Founders *may* have the exclusive right to make the decision regarding who is a "Native" of their region if the regional constitution permits this right (they always retain the power to make this decision), some Founders give away this right using law to limit their powers. Furthermore this decision is rarely done "directly", it's done indirectly.. its done when the Founder decides "you don't have the right to vote like the other residents", " you don't the right to participate like the other residents", "you don't have the right to be here like the other residents do" etc. etc. etc., which in turn crafts the overall policy opinion of whether you are a native or not.

But that is because the founder feels that others are adding some way to his vision of a region, even if all they are contribuiting is enough numbers to advertise their region. And let's be honest: any "Constitution" put in place is simply Roleplay or is part of the founder's ideal region. Most founders are not evil dictators, though, so their ideal region allows pretty much anyone who will not spam the RMB or make other members of the region uncomfortable.

Furthermore, "Native" is more than just "who is allowed to reside in the region", it's who is allowed to participate in the functioning of the government and get all those rights and privileges that say an ambassadorial account (someone who moves a puppet over to a region to "represent" the other region) is not entitled to, or say, a recruiter who moves to a Recruiter-Friendly region.

Additionally, there are many many nations in 10ki, but only some of them have the right to vote in their elections for example -- I believe you cannot have ties to any other region or organization if to vote. All are residents, but for the purposes of this academic study, only some of those are "natives" deserving of more rights.

I thought you were arguing for Negative Nativism. Gotta move them goalposts, eh?

If this is now how you define "Native", then there are vast numbers of regions without natives. "who is allowed to participate in the functioning of the government" would mean that all those dictatorial regions out there only have one or a few more natives. And this completely disregards those regions without a government at all. Are you implying that some regions are worth more than others? I thought you had something against that, but with you changing your argument all the time, who'd really know?

I suppose what you are correct to bear to light: there are rights given to non-native residents too. This study just switchs between "non-native" and "native" when those rights grow more distributed, leaving some with very insignificant rights and privileges compared to others. I do indeed simplify things, but for a reason, like all political science if it becomes too withdrawn, it becomes insignificant and boring -- I would prefer providing one with a theoretic lens to observe various conflicts and political issues with that (hopefully) will accurately provide insight as to what is going on.

You are right that ambassadors and raiders are residents and that they are not Natives, but you are ignoring that the determining factor is more simple than you would like it to be. By my definitions there are differences between Natives, Full Citizens, and Residents:

Resident: A nation that is in the region.

Full Citizen: A resident allowed to participate in regional politics as an individual, not an ambassador.

Native: A resident that is in the region while the founder exists and resides in the region, or a resident that was in the region when the founder ceased to exist.

In a foundered region, everyone is a resident and a native automatically, but citizenship is exclusive. In a founderless government, nativeness is exclusively by association with the dead founder. This is to protect the region from sleepers, and does not mean that there are lower levels of regional participation. Besides which, "Native" is an entirely R/D term used to describe who has ownership in the region. It has nothing to do with citizenship.

--

Unibot, I understand the problem you are having with my definition of Nativeness. You are thinking that limiting nativeness to an exclusive group based on who knew the founder would lead to a bunch of nativeless, founderless regions, legal to raid; and you think that is a bad thing. The truth is regions exist for the founder; else why would regions exist? They would not. No one would found a region if they did not have a motive or dream behind it. Those who subsequently join the region do so to share the founder's dream.

Founderless regions are unfortunate situations where the founder gave up on the region, but the residents did not say "game over". The only nations ownership of a region can first turn to are the nations already inside the region when the Founder CTEs, because they are the only nations capible of carrying on the reason the founder created that region in the first place. I realize this means that eventually the natives will CTE and leave the region nativeless, but this is good because it is impossible to determine ownership of the region further than anyone who associated with the founder.

Please note that by my definition, all GCRs are public. That is right, they are public. No one in the game can claim to have known the founder of any GCR, because these regions were created by Max. And I think it is obvious that Max created these regions for everyone.

Unibot, everything about a region stems from the founder of that region: name, ownership, power, region-building, culture, government, etc. To ignore this is to set founders on the same level as the residents of their region, which is not the case.

Galiantus wrote:But that is because the founder feels that others are adding some way to his vision of a region, even if all they are contribuiting is enough numbers to advertise their region. And let's be honest: any "Constitution" put in place is simply Roleplay or is part of the founder's ideal region. Most founders are not evil dictators, though, so their ideal region allows pretty much anyone who will not spam the RMB or make other members of the region uncomfortable.

Yes, as I said: founders always retain the power to influence their region -- but they may give up their right.

I thought you were arguing for Negative Nativism. Gotta move them goalposts, eh?

I said "I believe you cannot have ties to any other region or organization if to vote" as in, I think that's the case in 10ki, I could be wrong. Their rules aren't publicly stated.

If this is now how you define "Native", then there are vast numbers of regions without natives. "who is allowed to participate in the functioning of the government" would mean that all those dictatorial regions out there only have one or a few more natives.

In highly dictatorial regions, the distinction of native or non-native is totally pointless in regards to political power distribution. But in most "semi dictatorial" communities, there are those who are trusted insiders and those who are not.

I thought you had something against that

I do have something against that.

In a foundered region, everyone is a resident and a native automatically, but citizenship is exclusive. In a founderless government, nativeness is exclusively by association with the dead founder. This is to protect the region from sleepers, and does not mean that there are lower levels of regional participation. Besides which, "Native" is an entirely R/D term used to describe who has ownership in the region. It has nothing to do with citizenship.

This is not true. There are many "citizens" on paper that are still not "insiders" or adored with the same rights and privileges as others on the basis of time, political capital and legitimacy etc. I call this distinction, nativeness.

Unibot, everything about a region stems from the founder of that region: name, ownership, power, region-building, culture, government, etc. To ignore this is to set founders on the same level as the residents of their region, which is not the case.

I don't deny they have this authority, but many founders choose to transfer this power or limit it, thereby establishing what they ought not to do as founders.

Unibot III wrote:Additionally, there are many many nations in 10ki, but only some of them have the right to vote in their elections for example -- I believe you cannot have ties to any other region or organization if to vote. All are residents, but for the purposes of this academic study, only some of those are "natives" deserving of more rights.

That's not true. To vote in elections and on WA resolutions in 10ki you just have to have a WA nation in the region and be registered on the regional forum.

Unibot III wrote:Additionally, there are many many nations in 10ki, but only some of them have the right to vote in their elections for example -- I believe you cannot have ties to any other region or organization if to vote. All are residents, but for the purposes of this academic study, only some of those are "natives" deserving of more rights.

That's not true. To vote in elections and on WA resolutions in 10ki you just have to have a WA nation in the region and be registered on the regional forum.

So TITO members on active missions can't vote?

Cerian Quilor wrote:There's a difference between breaking the rules, and being well....Cromarty...

<Koth>all sexual orientations must unite under the relative sexiness of madjack

Former Delegate of OsirisBrommander of the Cartan Militia: They're Taking The Cartans To Isengard!Кромартий